The offer, which would free the hotel owners from repaying PDC-backed loans, provoked a strong reaction from readers last week (take our poll)

PDC chipped in $16.9 million in loans in 2008 to help The Nines project move forward. But since then, PDC received just $1 million from The Nines, and 11 percent interest rates on the loans ballooned the total owed to PDC up to $18.2 million.

Now, the PDC board will consider a proposal that brings in $11.5 million now, but leaves $6.7 million on the table. PDC staffers say that total is more than made up for in economic benefits from the addition of the luxury hotel in the city's downtown retail core.

Readers had a lot to say about the proposal. Here's a sampling of reader sentiment, some responses were edited for clarity and brevity.

lboo45 - "What all of you are missing is that the PDC structured a very bad deal. PDC's Lisa Abauf calls this a "success" because it created jobs and taxes. Excuse me Ms. Abauf but that assumes the building would have stayed empty all these years. No way a prime central downtown block would have stayed dormant. Something else would have created taxes and jobs, maybe in even greater amounts. And does she think the hotelier hasn't been pocketing anything during these years?"

Instead, PDC inserted itself into the market and took last position so when this cost-overrun, over-leveraged project couldn't make its payments PDC was junior to other creditors and now is forced to take a haircut. This isn't about big government screwing the taxpayers. It's about well-intentioned bureaucrats who are in way over their heads when it comes to finance and real estate. When the developers see these folks coming they see easy pickings and a laugher all the way to the bank.

Radical Pragmatist - "I'd argue the risks that PDC took in the Pearl district have more than paid off in a direct sense. It has also paid off in many other indirect ways (helping sustain a lively downtown, for one). That payoff more than makes up for other risks, like the Nines, that didn't have a good direct pay off, but have, in fact, had a great indirect pay off (again, a much more economically healthy downtown than without the Nines). If government takes risks and they work out, we praise the vision and leadership. If government takes risks and they don't work out, it's "corruption" and "incompetence".

pdxcoug - "Another fine example of the government's inability to pick winners and losers in the private sector. 1 in 10 businesses fail. How does the PDC know which one to support? Love when the government egregiously squanders millions of our hard-earned tax dollars."

Harley Leiber - "Take the money. It's a bird in hand situation. The worst thing would be a foreclosure all the way around."

NJAO - "Why is PDC in the business of subsidizing luxury hotels with public money to begin with?"

whazdat - "If another entity wants this property, which appears to be the matter, make them pay full value -period."

Kuntrywizdum - "They are about to get 'restructured' and bought out by another company, so we need to give them $6 million plus in free public money to help them profit from our investment? We gave them an $18 million loan but still have to stand behind 'senior creditors' who would get paid back first, leaving us in the? Sounds like this thing was engineered to be a big giveaway from the beginning.

Make them open their books, put a lien on the property until they pay back the loan, and don't offer such weak, unenforcable loan terms going forward."